450
E Street, Northwest
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Monday,
March 10, 2008
9:00 a.m.
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT Gregory W. Manz, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: Col Louis J. Puleo,
USMC
Case Summary: GCM conviction of making a false official
statement,
disorderly conduct, assault, communicating a threat, soliciting a
crime,
insubordination towards an NCO, attempting to strike a military police
officer,
and impersonating an NCO. Granted issue
questions whether the Staff Judge Advocate was required to recuse
himself from
involvement in Appellant’s case on the basis of JAGINST 5803.B, Rule
1.12, or
other law, regulation or directive. If
so, whether Appellant was prejudiced by the Staff Judge Advocate’s
failure to
do so.
NOTE:
Counsel for each side will be
allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.
Followed
by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt S. B. Kaza, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Major Brian Keller,
USMC
Case Summary: GCM conviction of attempted cruelty and
maltreatment, conspiracy, dereliction of duty, and making a false
official
statement. Granted issue questions
whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by finding that Appellant
was not
prejudiced by the failure of the Staff Judge Advocate to forward
clemency
matters submitted by Appellant to the convening authority prior to
taking
initial action and by finding that Appellant was not prejudiced when
the Staff
Judge Advocate held onto the clemency matters for over a year before
forwarding
matters to the convening authority.
NOTE:
Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral
argument.
Tuesday,
March 11, 2008
9:00 a.m.
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LCDR Necia L.
Chambliss, USCGR
Counsel for Appellee: LCDR P.M. Flynn, USCG
Case Summary: SPCM conviction of using disrespectful
language
towards a petty officer, use of marijuana, cocaine, and xanax, and
breaking
restriction. Granted issue questions
whether the military judge abused his discretion when he admitted
Prosecution Exhibit
3 over defense objection because it was extrinsic evidence of specific
acts of
misconduct offered to rebut an opinion. See
NOTE:
Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral
argument.
Followed
by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Eugene R. Fidell, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: LT Justin E. Dunlap,
JAGC, USN
Case Summary: GCM conviction of burglary, conduct
unbecoming an
officer and a gentleman, fraternization, and indecent assault. Granted issue questions whether trial defense
counsel’s failure to disclose his conflict of interest resulted in an
uninformed and invalid election of counsel.
NOTE:
Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral
argument.
Wednesday,
March 12, 2008
9:00 a.m.:
(Appellant)
(Appellee)
Counsel for Appellant: Maj Donna S.
Rueppell, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Griffin
Case Summary: GCM conviction of attempted voluntary
manslaughter,
wrongful use of cocaine, assault, bigamy, signing a false official
record,
disorderly conduct, and possessing drug paraphernalia.
The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force
requested action be taken with respect to the following issues: (1)
whether the
Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred in finding trial defense
counsel
ineffective; and (2) whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
erred in
rejecting trial defense counsel’s affidavit as untimely.
NOTE:
Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral
argument.
9:00 a.m.
(Appellant)
(Appellee)
Counsel for Appellant:
Counsel for Appellee:
Case Summary: GCM conviction of assault consummated by a
battery. The Judge Advocate General of the
Army
requested action be taken with respect to the following issue: whether
the United
States Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that the trial
defense
counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel because he waived an
affirmative defense instruction.
NOTE:
Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral
argument.
Followed
by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt Seth A. Director,
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Larry Downend,
Case Summary: GCM conviction of transporting child
pornography,
possession of child pornography, and making a false official statement. Granted issues question: (1) whether the
evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding of guilt for
transporting
child pornography in interstate commerce when no evidence exists that
Appellant
uploaded child pornography from his computer to the internet
file-sharing
program “Kazaa”; (2) whether the Army Court erred in affirming the
finding of
guilty for Specification 1 of Charge I when the Court affirmed under a
different theory of liability than was proffered to the military panel,
in
contravention of Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222
(1980); (3)
whether the military judge failed to properly instruct the panel on the
elements for Specification 1 of Charge I, by omitting the charged
language
“cause to be transported” from the oral and written instructions,
failing to
instruct on a possible Government alternate theory of liability under
Article
77, UCMJ, and failing to properly instruct on the term “uploading” when
the
computer experts at trial provided two varying definitions.
NOTE:
Counsel for each side will be allotted 30 minutes to present oral
argument.
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Frank
J. Spinner, Esq.
Counsel for
Appellee: Capt Roger E. Mattioli,
USMC
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of committing an indecent act on a child.
Granted issues question: (1) whether the military judge abused
his
discretion by admitting into evidence AAC’s hearsay statements in
violation of
Mil.R.Evid. 807 and the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution; and (2)
whether
the military judge abused his discretion by admitting into evidence
AAC’s
hearsay statements in violation of the notice requirement of
Mil.R.Evid. 807.
NOTE: This case will be heard at The Catholic
University
School of Law, Washington, D.C. as part of the Court’s Project
Outreach. Each side will be allotted 20 minutes
to present oral argument.